How did Medieval European Kings Differ from later Monarchs and Roman Emperors?

Many modern history buffs associate the function of Medieval Kings with monarchs of the later Renaissance period, or the pagan Roman Emperors that preceded them. However, during the "early" and "high" Middle Ages kings ruled in very different ways from those other monarchs. The Middle Ages provided a unique form of politics enabling self-government and liberty at a level that surpassed every other system of governance, including democracy.

Jeb Smith explains.

Henry I of England, who ruled from 1100-1135. From the illuminated Chronicle of Matthew Paris.

In my book, Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK), I seek to correct many of the common misunderstandings Americans – and indeed others - have regarding the political systems of the Middle Ages. Many believe kings had absolute power (something even the monarchs of later centuries never achieved) and made law as they wished. They were the law! Anything they desired or declared became law. This is much more in line with certain modern dictatorships, but it does not align with Medieval Europe; quite the opposite.

For example, the Medieval king was under the law, and his limited, specified authority was derived from it. He could not violate the law or customs of the people in any manner or create new laws for his advantage. Instead, he was given a duty to perform by the people for their benefit. He existed to serve them, not the other way around. In fact, there were often no professional legislative bodies to adjust the law at all! Unlike in democracies ruled by politicians, the law was conservative, maintained over hundreds of years untouched by rulers, and devoid of any mechanism to adapt, add to, or take away from it. It belonged to the people, not to those in power who were meant to serve them.

Part of the people

Further, the king was not elevated above his people but was one of them. He was the "king of the Anglo-Saxons" or the "king of the Franks," not a monarch who has authority over subjects within his geographical realm like the Roman emperors of old, the monarchs of later ages, or the politicians of today. Thus, kingdoms came and went, and borders were loosely defined since the law followed the people, not the king, who was replaced at death by another servant who must uphold the people's customs.

The law allowed the king only a minimal influence on affairs. Politicians, unelected bureaucrats, and capitalists have significantly more power and control over your lives than a medieval king over a peasant. The king had no authority (nor did anyone, for that matter) to legislate new laws or manipulate his people's economy, politics, and rights. There was no legislation! The law was practiced and enshrined over many generations, and it was the king's duty to protect and uphold it. If he did not, if he attempted to violate it, expand his powers, or enact new laws, it was the obligation of everyone in the realm, from priest to prince to peasant, to stand up and resist him, overthrow him, to reestablish justice and the supremacy of the law.

The most powerful political position in a society was never weaker than that of the feudal kings of Europe. Frequently, a king’s authority amounted to control (again within the limitation imposed by law that predated his birth) of his family lands. He was often a symbolic king only. Some of his vassals openly ignored him, failed to take an oath of allegiance, or resisted him. Other great lords within his “realm” were more powerful than he was and could muster a stronger force than the king. Most of what was considered his realm was ruled by various dukes, lords, knights, monasteries, churches, etc. The Middle Ages were extraordinarily decentralized. For example, in 800 A.D., Ireland was made up of perhaps 150 separate kingdoms, and by 1200 A.D., there were 200 autonomous city-states in Northern Italy. The kings ruled only minor sections and often had difficulty controlling even those areas.

Warfare

Likewise, the king lacked infrastructure and the ability to tax his people heavily; the level of taxation was minuscule compared to today. He lacked the Roman Emperors’ and modern states' ability to maintain standing professional armies. This made military operations smaller-scale and less devastating than modern or ancient warfare, which regularly drafted conscripts and was supported by national taxes.

I am unsure of any better anti-war policy than to start having our politicians fund their own wars out-of-pocket and lead their armies to the front lines for the conflict. Then, have those who vote for them make up their armies rather than drafting conscripts. It will not take long for diplomacy to start working more efficiently. People are much more likely to engage in war when they spend other people’s money, and send others to die for their personal gain.

However, kings led their loyal, oath-bound followers and friends into war during the Middle Ages, making each loss mean something. Conscripts do not have personal relationships with their politicians and presidents; feudal warfare meant everyone was valuable, and so they tried not to lose men in war and not carelessly sacrifice them.  In Roman times professional soldiers, mercenaries, slaves, urban warriors, prisoners, criminals, and the landless masses made up the bulk of the armies. By contrast, having extra time to train and advancements in equipment, the rural aristocratic Christian lord became a knight and dominated the battlefield, replacing the brutality of an earlier age with much less sanguinary and more modest warfare. Lords needed fewer soldiers because aristocrats could afford the time to train and to upkeep expertly crafted armor, and their horses could dominate multiple hired soldiers. The treatment of soldiers drastically improved because the warriors were valuable. They were loved and loyal, oath-bound, personally known vassals of a lord, not conscripted masses sent to be slaughtered. The lords would not easily sacrifice those they loved but instead dealt carefully with them; further, because they were valued, they were worth more alive when captured.

When conducted by faithful oath-bound followers of the lord rather than draftees and conscripts, war became detached from the rest of society. The warfare between noble and royal houses and oath-bound vassals often left the rest of the population unaffected. Medieval wars were not nations at war where production and the population at large were engaged in conflict. Instead, the lord's followers and the money he gained from his lands sustained the wars; thus, they were much smaller and less lethal. The aims were smaller, and so were the costs. Because the lord paid for the war and valued his loyal vassals, who were not easily replaced, battles often resulted in few deaths. Casualties for an entire war were usually only a few hundred. Some battles could feature just a dozen or so knights.

From King to Monarch

In my book, I argue that the Middle Ages passed away during the 14th century. Many factors contributed to its demise. The great plague, the rise of merchants, trade, towns, cities, money economies, the loss of power of the Church and the Pope due to schisms, and the centralization of secular powers all played a part. However, the most impactful force during the transformative 14th century was the widespread return of Roman law. As secular Roman law returned, kings slowly transformed into monarchs, rulers above their people, able to legislate new law, rulers over geographical areas, and they began to tax more widely and heavily. They were imposing new restrictions and obligations on vassals and peasants. The ancient political systems under Rome, which ruled its subjects by force and cohesion, returned. Government was no longer viewed as to benefit man, but man to benefit the ruling elite. The situation only worsened during the 17th century as the Protestant “divine right of kings” was instituted, and later, under democracy, when the modern nationalist blind obedience to the state reared its ugly head.

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

The Diet of the Inhabitants of the Middle Ages. What Did People Eat 1,000 Years Ago?

If we think about the food of the Middle Ages, what do we imagine? Maybe pigs and cows, large fireplaces, and tankards with ale. But this picture is only a part of the story. Of course, the dishes in those times were far less varied than those of today. And peasants’ food was far less diverse than that of the upper-classes. But still, we can find some interest when looking into what people ate 1,000 years ago. Alex Moren explains.

John, Duke of Berry, enjoying a great meal in France. Painted by the Limbourg Brothers, 15th century.

The Dark Ages or the Middle Ages (commonly seen to have been the 5thto the 15thcentury in Europe) are often seen as the time of darkness, hunger and pestilence. It was not a particularly refined time – it was an age of superstition. The period has inspired many legends and tales and still attracts children and adults alike. But just what did people eat during the Middle Ages in Europe?

Important Things To Remember: Seasons, Salt And Storage

Medieval life was ruled by the temperatures and the seasons. The food was plentiful in the early summer, with berries and early grains, and in autumn, when the harvest was finished. But even with a good harvest and lots of cattle, food was hard to keep. Cold cellars, deep dungeons and ice were the best ways to preserve something. Curing, smoking and salting the meat and fish was also a way to stock up before winter. People even salted butter so that it would keep longer. And because of that, some of the most precious items were salt and simple spices like garlic. Remember the old fairy tale about the princess who told her father the king that she loves him more than salt? A kingdom without salt could starve, so it was indeed very precious. Spices were rare, although during the Crusades there was greater awareness of cardamom, cinnamon, coriander and pepper. For most the taste of food was much simpler: food could be salty, a little tinged with vinegar or garlic, or sweetened with honey. 

But not only seasons determined what a person could eat; their position determined it, too. A diet of a peasant was very different from a diet of a monk. It may seem that it is better to be someone who grows your own food. But if we look at the life in the Middle Ages more closely, we can see that the “down to the earth life” was also the most dangerous one.

Peasants: Barely Any Rules All.

In our century, we often idealize rural life. But actually, being a medieval peasant meant to live a very hungry and dangerous life. In many countries, peasants were not really free. They were obligated to work for the higher classes - for the monasteries or nobles who owned the lands they resided on. And they still had to care for their own land as well. Besides, they had to pay taxes, and they remained even in drought and poor harvest.

The peasant had to depend mainly on what they could grow for food. Wheat was an expensive grain, and usually, it was sent to the nobles or the tax collectors. What was left for the villagers was barley and vegetables like turnip and cabbage.

Raising animals for meat, such as cows, goats or sheep required pastures. Hogs were also very expensive to have. Hunting was also forbidden, as forests belonged to the king or his followers (remember Robin Hood saving some peasants because they killed a royal deer?). Having a cow was a sign of wealth - with a cow, one could get milk, produce cheese and even sell them.

All of these things lead to a simple conclusion  - peasants ate very little and their diet was far from diverse. Usually, in the village, it was porridge, vegetable or chicken stew, fish for religious days (there were many!), and cheese and different kinds of preserved meat, if they were lucky enough. And they ate twice a day. 

So, peasants used to eat little. So, did rich people eat too much?

 

Rich: We Have Wheat and We Have Meat! 

When people had money, pastures and servants, they could have variety in their food, too! All the dishes we usually associate with medieval times, such as a pig being roasted on a stick, stuffed pheasants, pigeons and deer - could all be found on the tables of various nobles, sheriffs, and, of course, kings. They could afford spices as well, so the dishes included sauces and vinegar. No barley bread for the knights and barons - they ate wheat bread, and probably pastries as well. 

Though monks were considered servants of God, they could be considered rich as well. Monasteries used to have wide lands assigned to them. They had access to wheat, like nobles. They also grew their own herbs, had their own cattle, and even fisheries. The latter was especially important, as monks had to observe Lent and other religious holidays very strictly. The meat was often forbidden, only fish was allowed. However, in many countries, birds that swim in water, such as ducks, geese and swans, were considered fish, too! As a result, in many monasteries, the diet was not particularly strict. That’s why in the medieval legends, the fat, overeating monks are so common.

 

Last, But Not Least: Be Careful What You Drink! 

Water was filthy. There were no filtration systems, and water was often not boiled before use. Drinking water was often the main instrument of spreading diseases. That is why people preferred other beverages - diluted wine, mead, or other forms of alcohol, which were relatively safe. Everybody drank, even children.

A medieval knight would be shocked to see our regular meals. Now, we depend on potatoes as a staple food instead of turnips, and we have a much larger variety of grains. Wild meat is now rare, and we eat a lot of pork and beef instead. And water is safe in our time!

Who do you think eats healthier: the people of the twenty-first century or the tenth century? Let us know below.

This article was brought to you by the authors of PapersOwl Australia writing service.

Editor’s note: This site is not affiliated in any way with this website. Please see the link here for more information about external links.

How Dark were the ‘Dark Ages’ – Four Myths you probably believe

What comes to mind when the ‘Dark Ages’ is mentioned? Religious conflict? Anti-science sentiment among the illiterate and uneducated? Noble knights conquering on horseback amid plagues and unsanitary cities? In contrast, the Middle Ages were marked by the preservation of knowledge following the collapse of the Roman Empire and the pursuit of further innovation that birthed the Renaissance. Below we explain four infamous myths about the Medieval Era. 

King Richard II of England (1367-1400) holding an orb and scepter for his coronation nearly a century before Christopher Columbus made his famous sail across the ocean blue. 

Myth 1#: Medieval Woman had no rights

As opposed to the image of an oppressed, powerless peasant woman in the Middle Ages, women wielded considerable power outside of domestic duties. In the church, women could hold high positions as abbesses of convents or the female head of a community of nuns. This position possessed great responsibility and superior authority over the monks. Women also exercised political power, most prominently as queens and substitutes for the male monarchs during their periods of absence, illness, or due to their youth. Some queens were remarked in history as powerful and influential. In one historical example, Isabella of France or the “She-Wolf of France,” joined forces with her lover, exiled Marcher Lord, Roger Mortimer, to end the reign of her husband, Edward II, and took the English throne for herself. While an overwhelming majority of women did not hold such positions of power, taking up the role of wives and nuns instead, those that were widowed had legal independence. It is worth noting that both young aristocratic men and women had little say in their choice of spouse. By all historical accounts, women in the Medieval Era were resilient, skillful, and practical people.

Myth #2: Medieval people had terrible hygiene and a low life expectancy

The disastrous effects of the Black Death (1346-1353) prompted people during the Dark Ages to explore the link between health, hygiene, and disease. It was during this time the crusaders brought soap from the Far East to Europe along the Silk Road. People generally bathed in cold water with the exception of the wealthy who bathed in hot water. Before entering the Great Hall in Medieval Castles, guests and nobility alike were expected to wash their hands. Teeth were brushed with the use of a cloth or mixtures of herbs and even ashes of burnt rosemary. Bad teeth could be pulled out – the only remedy – without the use of anesthetic or painkillers.

In 1388, the English Parliament issued the following statement in an effort to improve hygiene in Medieval London: “Item, that so much dung and filth of the garbage and entrails be case and put into ditches, rivers, and other waters… so that the air there is grown greatly corrupt and infected, and many maladies and other intolerable diseases do daily happen… it is accorded and assented, that the proclamation be made as well in the city of London, as in other cities, boroughs, and towns through the realm of England, where it shall be needful that all they who do cast and lay all such annoyances, dung, garbages, entrails, and other ordure, in dithes, rivers, waters, and other places aforesaid, shall cause them utterly to be removed, avoided, and carried away, every one upon pain to lose and forfeit to our Lord the King the sum of 20 pounds…”

Myth #3: People believed the earth was flat

The full common myth follows: Christopher Columbus’ voyage to the new world disproved the Church’s teachings of a flat earth. This was a belief defended vigorously by people living in the Medieval Era on punishment of imprisonment or worse – similar to Galileo’s case while championing heliocentrism (that the earth and other planets revolve around the sun) in the 1610s, over a century after the end of the Dark Ages. In reality, that popular myth was coined in 1828 by author Washington Irving who wrote a biography of Columbus, depicting him as a “radical thinker” who turned his back on a backwards Old World in favor of the rationalism promised to the New World without historical and factual backing, in favor of popularity and publicity. During some kings’ coronations, a golden sphere was held in the king’s left hand to symbolize the earth (see the above image of King Richard II of England). In a collection of German sermons dated to the thirteenth century, its  peasant audience was told that the earth was “round like an apple.”

Myth #4: The “Dark Ages” had no technological and scientific breakthroughs which is why progress was stalled for centuries

With the Western Roman Empire’s collapse in 476AD, funding for engineering and large-scale infrastructure depleted. Many of the skills necessary to create monumental buildings and complex technology withered away to history. Then over time, the decline of long-distance trade between Europe and Asia resulted in self-sufficient production to solely meet local needs. This method was used in communities so efficiently that it led to its continental spread across Europe and the invention of the horse-collar, mouldboard plough, water mills, and power mills. The blast furnace and development of cast iron were two innovations that advanced metal technology in Medieval times that even exceeded that of the Romans!

Moreover, innovations in wind and water-power during the Second half of the Middle Ages (1000 – 1500 AD) revolutionized agrarian Europe, turning the continent into a rich, populous, and expanding Christian power. In the thirteenth century, the first mechanical clocks were installed across Europe. This clock was the most complex form of mechanism at the time, taking eight years to complete its full cycle of calculations. Universities were on the rise in Medieval Europe, providing a large market for books, while experiments with block printing led to the best known Medieval invention: the printing press.

A closer look into Medieval Europe debunks our perceived image of the infamous “Dark Ages”. In between two revolutionary eras of breakthroughs, innovation, and artistic expression lies a thousand-year period of struggles, self-sufficiency, and a bridge into future human progress.

What do you think of progress during the Dark Ages? Let us know below…

References

Frater, Jamie. "Top 10 Myths About The Middle Ages." Listverse.com. N.p., 7 Jan. 2009. Web. 6 June 2017.

Gabriele, Matthew. "Five Myths about the Middle Ages." The Washington Post. N.p., 23 Sept. 2016. Web. 6 June 2017.

O'Neill, Tim. "How the Middle Ages Really Were." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 08 Sept. 2014. Web. 06 June 2017.